[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mutt no longer in non-us?

On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 09:22:09AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > If you think about prime numbers near the Mexican borders the US could try
> > to say you're exporting crypto.  We made the decision that a simple "run
> > this seperate program and pipe output back to me" cannot reasonably be
> > considered encryption hooks.
> That's great, again, so long as the program itself doesn't mention
> encryption in its own code or docs.  Signing is OK, as the gov't has said
> that they're only worried about encryption, not one-way hashes.

So since procmail comes with documentation for setting it up to process
things with PGP it too must go into non-us or the offending documentation
removed?  Sounds like government infringement on the right to free press
to me.

> > If such is allowed to be considered encryption we must also conclude that
> > bash contains encryption hooks (as it too will optionally run pgp and read
> > its output) and so would any program which may run any arbitrary binary
> > and pipe its output someplace useful.
> Do the bash man pages describe how to use pgp to encrypt messages?

No, but some of the procmail docs talks about how to use pgp with it.  It
also talks about how to make an email based file server, among other
things.  And I'm almost positive they accompany our procmail package.

> > And frankly speaking for only myself as a citizen of the US and not as a
> > developer here, the US government can shove their crypto regs someplace
> > unpleasant---I refuse to comply with them on the grounds that they are an
> > affront to the protections guaranteed me under the first, fourth, and
> > fifth ammendments to the constitution and further do place myself and my
> > personal property at great risk when conducting wire-based transactions.
> I'd also like to make sure the debian.org machines don't get seized one
> day when the gov't gets a bug up their butt.  Yes, it's likely that mutt
> won't be the critical factor here.  But if you're going to willfully
> violate the common interpretation of the law, at least you should make
> sure everyone else is on board, such as the various Debian distributors.

The fact is there is no interpretation of the law in the court system.
However the government wants us to believe it means anything they want us
to.  I think we should quit trying to be paranoid about them coming after
us for things they simply wouldn't and couldn't and worry about things
that are serious problems.

I frankly don't think the DOJ cares if our mutt package has the ability to
be used with pgp.  I further should point out that pgp shells have
traditionally been considered exportable.  Through the years I have never
S citizen to download a pgp shell.

- Joseph Carter         GnuPG public key:   1024D/DCF9DAB3, 2048g/3F9C2A43
- knghtbrd@debian.org   20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC  44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
<Overfiend> we're calling 2.2 _POTATO_??

Attachment: pgpEHqRyFLk24.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: